.
Feedback

Pacific View Rezoning Request Gets the Red Light

Encinitas City Council agreed to hear the issue at a later date after Encinitas Union School District's lawsuit against the city over the property has been resolved.

The Encinitas City Council voted Wednesday night not to accept a request to amend the city’s general plan and rezone the Pacific View Elementary School property so an arts center could be constructed.

In a 4-0 vote, councilmembers agreed they could not approve the request because Encinitas Union School District is currently suing the city over the property. Councilwoman Kristin Gaspar recused herself from the issue, as she has done in the past.

The district has attempted to sell the site, which was built in 1953, since the school was closed in June 2003 due to declining enrollment. The district filed a lawsuit against the city for twice denying rezoning requests for residential development at the 2.8-acre parcel. 

Nearly two dozen speakers addressed the council in support of an application by Art Pulse requesting a zoning change to allow for an arts center and seven houses. The nonprofit arts organization offered to purchase the site for $7.5 million to build a mixed-use arts center that would include classrooms, galleries, studios, performance areas, a library, a museum, short-term live/work spaces, a coffee shop and a retail store. Current zoning allows for public and semi-public uses only.

“There is a unique opportunity for Encinitas to be on the creative pulse of an artistic, cultural and educational vein,” said Solana Beach author Diane Welch.

Carlsbad artist Ann Olsen agreed.

“I believe this is the best use of this Pacific View Elementary School site for the city of Encinitas and North County communities,” she said.

A few speakers spoke in favor of an art center but against zoning changes.

Don McPherson, who owns property on First Street, requested the city create two distinct zoning areas: residential, single-family zoning for the seven houses and mixed-use zoning for the art center.

Bill Sparks, who has lived in Encinitas for more than 25 years, said he supports an art center at the site, but not a zoning change because he thinks the site should remain intact.

“I’m here tonight because I’m deeply troubled by the prospect of a private real estate developer being allowed to rezone and end up owning a large portion of this Pacific View property with the intent of building private residences for resale,” Sparks said.

Encinitas Union School District Superintendent Timothy Baird said the district would drop its lawsuit against the city if the council proceeded with the request from Art Pulse.

“This is the art center. This is the one that we all need to get behind and support and make happen,” Baird said. “I urge the council to move with due haste to make this happen and move this project forward, and the district is fully in support of that.”

Councilmembers agreed they would hear the item again, but not until the lawsuit is resolved. If the council accepts the application for rezoning at a later date, the matter would come before the council again during a public hearing with a recommendation from the city's planning commission.

“The lawsuit should have been dropped prior to the request for the rezone,” said Mayor Jerome Stocks. “We’re not going to start going down a process with a gun to our head. That’s just not appropriate.”

Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter

Bruce Stephens September 27, 2012 at 11:43 am
School District Superintendent Baird was right there at the meeting saying the School District would drop its lawsuit if Encinitas City would agree to accept the zoning change application. But instead, the City Council decided to kick the can down the road. It is truly unfortunate. Art Pulse deserves to at least apply for the zoning change. They have come up with the best plan so far for the Pacific View site, and deserve a little more respect than this. Let's hope these issues can be resolved so that Art Pulse can at least give it a shot. This property is a gem, and could be a very important resource for Encinitas and all of North County.
Gerald Sodomka September 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm
I think the city council got it right. The threat of the lawsuit needs to removed first. Does Tim Baird think the council is speaking in bad faith? Unlikely, since the city can always back out of the deal by not approving the zoning change. This is the aspect of the deal that the art supporters are not seeing, but Tim Baird does see it. He would prefer to keep the threat as a lever in dealing with the city..
The zoning change to Arts Center/Mixed Use to build houses on the property will possibly require a public vote of approval. City staff seems unsure. This probably means a vote of the electorate will be needed, not something Baird wants. This may be the best plan so far. Even better would be a plan to keep the whole parcel Public/Semi Public and preserve all 2.8 acres for an arts complex and the historical school house.
sb September 27, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Bill Sparks is absolutely correct. Since it is this developer fronting the money for the deal, I question the validity of an art center.
Lynn Marr September 27, 2012 at 09:47 pm
Yes, we all want an art center but not at the expense of selling out to developers and a Superintendent more interested in short term gain than in maintaining irreplaceable assets in the public domain. The City and the Encinitas Union School district should keep the public/semi-public zoning, which the community wants, as well as an art center!
The Requests for Proposal put out by EUSD solicited proposals that would maintain the public zoning . . . Now the "private applicant" (Art Pulse-John DeWald) requests that the City amend its Specific Plan to create an entirely new zoning category that is NOT compatible with the existing neighborhood, so called "mixed-use/Art Center. The plan is to OVERBUILD. Should Art Pulse or DeWald "fall through" substitute developers could build, according to escrow papers only provided by the attorney of an interested party, yesterday morning, Sept. 26. There's NO GUARANTEE, that so-called art classrooms couldn't be converted to residential condo units, or that the "residential lots" Seven lots are designated for DUPLEXES, and an unnecessary "caretaker's residence" are planned, with one residential unit part of the building designated as "art center!" This whole scheme seems like a scam. Many good people support the arts. We don't have to resort to funding our arts center through falling for "bait and switch" tactics. We can take our time and allow the public to vote.
Lynn Marr September 27, 2012 at 09:56 pm
I would absolutely vote for a smaller scaled art center, WITHOUT A ZONING CHANGE, and with more open space.
According to the Naylor Act, the City should be allowed to purchase 30% of property, .84 acre, at 25% of the appraised value under the public/semi-public zoning, for open space. EUSD, under Superintendents Devoir, King and Baird, has skirted this issue. So has the City of Encinitas, which should have asked for, or performed, and independent appraisal when it first contracted with EUSD to lease the property and pave over the playing fields for a temporary pubic works yard . . . According to the intent of the State Legislature, and to our community's wishes, the school district should have declared the closed school site surplus when it first allowed the playing fields to be paved over! As soon as it was determined that the school would not be re-opened, the site should have been declared surplus. Playing a waiting game, saying you are going to trade the property, not sell it is not ok, when it was initially leased, and you are now selling! The time for the Naylor Act should toll from when it was initially leased, after the school was permanently closed. Superintendent Baird did not do his homework in properly "vetting" the financials of Art Pulse, or in getting an independent appraisal of the property. Then he tried to force development through leveraging a bogus lawsuit. I'm glad Council didn't base their decision on fear!
Lynn Marr September 27, 2012 at 10:22 pm
I meant to say there's also no guarantee the so-called residential lots could not, at a later date, be converted to mixed use, if the entire parcel is zoned "mixed-use/art center." The City shouldn't set precedent by creating an entirely new zoning category to appease development interests, WITHOUT ALLOWING A PUBLIC VOTE!
Again, the art center could be built, and Maggie Houlihan & many in the community have envisioned it SHALL be built on public/semi-public, land. We shouldn't be forced to privatize "in the name of art." Art can exist, as it does at the library, now, within the community "constraints" of public/semi-public zoning, in order to honor and preserve the public trust, our common heritage, our irreplaceable asset of donated land! The highest common good would be for a smaller scaled art center, with at least 30% open space, NOT a for-profit developer's providing financing thru partnership with a non-profit running at a deficit, without any other reliable source of funding for a project of the magnitude proposed! Art Pulse seems excellent at self-promotion, but not at raising money! Financing is being "taken care of" by John DeWald, developer of Pacific Station re their plans for Pacific View. Several real estate developers spoke at the 9/26 Council Meeting for Art Pulse. Most speaking in favor of Art Pulse/DeWald's plan were from out of town. Those who opposed were locals! The Patch piece doesn't quote us, locals, NOT in favor of rezoning!
April Game September 28, 2012 at 07:23 am
Thank you for reporting on this Ms. Houck.
What I love about Encinitas is its willingness to actively engage in the development of its community and to fight for what it believes in. Art Pulse wishes to thank the 17 supporters who spoke at the city council meeting on 9/26: Paul Ecke - Encinitas: Pres., Encinitas Preservation Association Treggon Owens - Encinitas: Pres., DEMA, Encinitas Preservation Association Lloyd O’Connell – Encinitas: Encinitas Historical Society Manuelita Brown - Encinitas: Artist, Encinitas Preservation Association Diane Welch - Solana Beach: Artist, Writer, Historian Mia - little girl who wants this because there is no art in her school William Simon - Encinitas: Positive Action Community Theater David Chase - Encinitas: La Jolla Symphony Chorus Peter Tobias - Encinitas: Doctor Roxanne Grooms - San Diego: Artist moving to Encinitas if this center is built Erick Scott - Encinitas: Site neighbor excited about what this will bring to the neighborhood Ann Olson - Carlsbad: Artist Bhavna Mehta - San Diego: Artist, art educator Dianne O'Connor - Encinitas: Artist Betsy Gilpin - Encinitas: North Coast Symphony Robert Matts - Encinitas: Businessman Austin Blue – Encinitas Thank you! I know it takes a lot of energy, time, and guts and to stand up for what you believe in and I truly appreciate your commitment to this project. It means a lot to all of us - your support makes a difference!
April Game September 28, 2012 at 07:25 am
To folks who came and did not have a chance to speak, thank you so much for coming out and showing your support!
Erin Weidner - Rancho Santa Fe: Arts Patron, Mainly Mozart Susan Bailey-Cowan - Rancho Santa Fe: Arts Patron, Bach Collegium Ansley Pye - Point Loma: Artist, Gallery Director Francine Hudson - San Diego: Arts supporter Steve Dilley - Encinitas: Artist Joe McNalley - Encinitas: Artistic Director, The Hutchins Consort Ryan Maher - Encinitas: Gallery Director Pam Wells - Encinitas: Artist If I left someone out, I apologize. I welcome any feedback. My email is april@artpulse.org. Thank you!
Lynn Marr September 28, 2012 at 03:51 pm
No one who spoke in favor of Art Pulse-DeWald's development plans talked about rezoning. None of them spoke to the question of seven residential lots actually being for twinhomes. None of them understood or spoke to the issue of the Naylor Act.
We can all agree, we'd love an art center. Those who do NOT support rezoning favor a smaller-scaled COMMUNITY art center. Many feel that this is a "bait and switch," about which the majority of the speakers you list are probably completely unaware. Art Pulse was "sold" as having "money on hand" and deep pocket financial backers. The only money put up for Escrow, so far, $100,000, was put up by the developer of Pacific Station, John DeWald. EUSD didn't do it's homework in checking Art Pulse's financial standing. Last year, as of Ocotober, a significant grant made to San Diego Fine Arts Society (Art Pulse) was rescinded when the California Arts Council discovered that a $600,000 loan (from Henry Moon) to Art Pulse had been represented as income. The Coast News stated that Art Pulse, a relatively young organization, has been running at a deficit since 2008? Correct me if I'm wrong, please, April! So, that's part of the bait and switch. A for profit developer, NOT a non-profit is actually providing the funding. DeWald is to pay another $200,000 at the end of October, if he wants to move forward beyond the "feasibility period." If he doesn't, his $100,000 (securing a 7.5 million dollar escrow) is refundable!
Lynn Marr September 28, 2012 at 04:15 pm
Part of the "bait and switch," is that when requests for proposals were sent out to non-profits, the RFP clearly stated that any development was to be within the current zoning, public/semi-public! Our donated, local asset should remain in the public domain!
Because this issue involves real property negotiations with EUSD, the Board of Trustees is allowed (but not MANDATED) to meet in closed session with Art Pulse (April Game) & John DeWald (developer of Pacific Station), where the TERMS of the RFP were switched! Because of pending litigation with the City of Encinitas, Council also meets in closed session to discuss the lawsuit filed by EUSD against the City, last year, trying to force rezoning. The public has been cut out of the process. What April Game, through her organization has been excellent at has been promotion, including self-promotion. She apparently HASN'T been so adept at raising the enormous amount of money that it would take to build the monolithic art center, with an outside amphitheater, to seat 300 people, & underground parking (for only 87 vehicles?) proposed. If Art Pulse should fail, for whatever reason, or DeWald should pull out, the escrow instructions allow that another developer could come in. A couple of real estate developers spoke in favor of Art Pulse-DeWald's plan, including Paul Ecke. This would be another development bonanza, for high density, mixed-use, should the zoning be changed. Once it's changed, there's no going back!
Chris Saunders September 29, 2012 at 03:31 pm
Well put, Bruce. The whole thing could have been resolved in a positive, productive way right then and there.
Lynn Marr September 29, 2012 at 05:27 pm
The whole thing couldn't have been resolved "right there." The City can't make decisions out of fear of threatened litigation; we won't be leveraged by a lawsuit while being lobbied by PR specialists.
The community WANTS a smaller art center with NO zoning change; with more open space, not more parking lots. Locals who understand the real issues realize changing the zoning would privatize land donated for public use. To keep OUR surplus school site in the public domain, the zoning must remain public/semi-public. Our city has a responsibility of stewardship, which it exercises through zoning authority. Superintendent Baird, formerly of Ojai Unified School District, before he came to EUSD in 2009, did something similar in Ojai. Baird before tried to thwart the plans of that community, which had been promised by OUSD & Ojai that they could build a skatepark at a surplus school site, there. Instead, Baird negotiated with Ojai developers & profiteers to put in what was variously described in Ojai blogs as a "strip mall/art center." But the community had been promised a 14 year lease for a skatepark! Baird stirred-up much controversy. The Ojai skatepark was finally built after Baird was hired by EUSD at over $65,000 more per year, making over $200,000, here, with a recent contract renewal, when teachers are being given pink slips! And voters passed a $44 Million school bond in 2010. Short-term profit isn't worth the loss of public trust & irreplaceable assets!

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits. "In the 26-yearRead More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative! Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause." We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm
YES on PROP A which is NOT deeply flawed and very well written.